The Chinese-language Next Magazine created quite a sensation last week when it ran a front-page headline reading "[Former president Lee Teng-hui (
But in what respect has Lee abandoned Taiwanese independence? We must first discuss what the true meaning and practical implications of "Taiwanese independence" really is before we can make a fair and objective appraisal of Lee's remarks. The most imposing challenge to Taiwanese independence comes from China.
So -- even though in practical terms Taiwan is a country with its own government, territory, citizenry and sovereignty -- it cannot normalize its status and earn recognition in the international community. And because it lacks recognition from the rest of the world, Taiwan is not a "normal" country. Therefore, the most fundamental meaning of "Taiwanese independence" is the need to distinguish that Taiwan is not China.
Based on this principle, we have constantly declared to the international community that there are two separate countries on each side of the Taiwan Strait and each year we knock on the door of the UN. Domestically, we have been striving toward the goals of creating a new constitution and changing the nation's official title.
As Lee says, "We should stop talking about Taiwanese independence." Instead, we should take concrete steps to realize the goal of normalizing our country by applying to join the UN, amending the nation's title and writing a new constitution. There are two strategies for Taiwan to follow in pursuing these goals.
First, the concept of "Taiwanese independence" could logically make people assume that Taiwan is a part of China, that certain factors have led Taiwan to advocate seceding from China but that China will not allow it to do so.
Viewed from this angle, talking about Taiwanese independence falls into the dangerous logic of treating Taiwan as a part of China, which is just what China wants. But if we switch up the terminology and say that we want to realize Taiwanese independence by turning Taiwan into a "normalized country," not only is this a more accurate description of the situation, but it also helps us avoid adopting dangerously muddled logic. In the past few years, haven't Taiwanese grown accustomed to using the phrase "striving toward becoming a normal country?"
Second, in order to prevent domestic and international disturbances from blocking Taiwan on its path to normalization, it's best to just "do" Taiwanese independence rather than talk about it. This has been the pan-green camp's unspoken common understanding for many years and the reason why -- for more than a decade -- we have been taking concrete steps such as applying to the UN and talking about transitional justice, amending the national name and creating a new constitution. Aren't all of these real, practical efforts embarked on with an eye to tangibly realizing Taiwanese independence?
Taiwan Advocates and the Formosan Association for Public Affairs will hold an event on the difficulties and breakthroughs in the creation of a new constitution on March 4. Isn't this symbolic of the combined efforts of Taiwanese both at home and abroad to realize Taiwanese independence?
So how exactly has Lee abandoned Taiwanese independence?
Margot Chen is a research fellow at Taiwan Advocates, a think tank initiated by former president Lee Teng-hui.
Translated by Marc Langer
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS